Macro - Discussion & Photos

stevo

nativebeehives.com
Premium Member
GOLD
Jun 13, 2013
1,788
683
361
Clontarf, Qld
nativebeehives.com
Climate
Sub-Tropical
Why would you use this instead of your actual 40 mil macro lense though?
it's cheaper than buying an expensive Macro lens. It would have came about by someone just flipping their lens, hand holding it and finding that it was good at macro. So you could get some awesome macro for very cheap. You could try it right now with your 55mm lens, flip it, hand hold it to the camera and shoot.

For example:
40mm macro lens $300
105mm macro lens $1100 (correction $860)

reverse ring - $30
extension tubes - $100 - $150?

and photo people try all kinds of weird things :ROFL:
 
Last edited:

Ash

Valued Member
Premium Member
Mar 26, 2015
679
304
281
Preston, QLD
asmedical.webege.com
Climate
Temperate (all seasons)
Those are quite exorbitant prices for macro lenses. One brand I know has second hand auto focus 100mm macro lenses for around $350 and new ones for about $600. These are as good as anyone would need for close up work. 50mm macro lenses may be about $100 cheaper.
 

stevo

nativebeehives.com
Premium Member
GOLD
Jun 13, 2013
1,788
683
361
Clontarf, Qld
nativebeehives.com
Climate
Sub-Tropical
That's just normal prices for Nikon or Canon, and they're grey import prices too, Australian sellers sell them for more.

I'm not defending Nikon prices here at all as yeah it's very expensive Ash, but I've got a Tamron 28-300mm macro lens someone gave me and it's terrible, I think it was at the very cheap end and it's trying to do too much and not good at anything. If I buy Nikon I know what i'm getting but i'd be hesitant to buy cheaper brands because I don't have any experience with them, i'd probably take the risk if I saw a majority of positive reviews.

PS. There's a Nikon 60mm macro for $500, so that compares to your 50mm new price, so that's not bad.

edit, oops the Nikon 105mm is $860, not $1100
 
Last edited:

Ash

Valued Member
Premium Member
Mar 26, 2015
679
304
281
Preston, QLD
asmedical.webege.com
Climate
Temperate (all seasons)
Nikon and Canon both have unreasonable price tags on their lenses. Their image quality for comparable lenses are not any better than that of Pentax, whose lenses are markedly cheaper. What Pentax cannot offer is availability of their gear as most shops do not stock Pentax. Nevertheless I have ordered their gear mostly through Pentax Australia and B&H or KEH, and I wouldn't think of switching systems. Best ergonomics for a very reasonable price. Probably not the best for a pro who needs regular servicing of gear and customer support, but for the enthusiast it is the perfect brand.
 

stevo

nativebeehives.com
Premium Member
GOLD
Jun 13, 2013
1,788
683
361
Clontarf, Qld
nativebeehives.com
Climate
Sub-Tropical

Mark

Founder
Staff member
May 27, 2012
5,088
1,519
411
Bellmere, QLD
www.selfsufficientme.com
Climate
Sub-Tropical
Here's some articles if anyone is interested in it about the reverse lens with photos. It's a cheap option if you haven't got much cash.

http://petapixel.com/2015/05/01/sho...n-the-cheap-with-a-reversed-lens/#more-164609

http://photo.blogoverflow.com/2011/07/take-macro-shots-like-this-for-less-than-the-cost-of-a-pizza/
I read them but it looks hard and my brain hurts :facepalm:plus as you say Stevo I could end up with dirt on my lens (especially a complete amateur like me) I wish I could just afford a good macro lense for my Nikon... I'm still thinking about the Tamron 90mm Macro lens @letsgo uses that seems like a fair price for a reasonable lens don't you think? Even if I can get a few shots half as good as some of hers I'd be happy.
 

Ash

Valued Member
Premium Member
Mar 26, 2015
679
304
281
Preston, QLD
asmedical.webege.com
Climate
Temperate (all seasons)
The Tamron 90mm macro is by far the best bang for buck on any mount (camera brand). It is exquisitely sharp and will render images as well as any über expensive macro lens around. Its only downfall is its build quality. It is chiefly plastic and is known to allow dust into its internals just like most other Tamron lenses. Otherwise it is going to give any amateur beautiful images for a fraction of the price of a brand labelled macro lens.
 

stevo

nativebeehives.com
Premium Member
GOLD
Jun 13, 2013
1,788
683
361
Clontarf, Qld
nativebeehives.com
Climate
Sub-Tropical
yeah Mark I posted that reverse lens stuff more out of interest, documenting what you can do for $30, Great for people with no money or weirdo photographers, but yeah it'd be ideal to buy a proper macro lens. The Tamron would probably be fine. Is that lens around $450?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark

Letsgokate

Valued Member
Premium Member
Nov 12, 2014
910
397
281
SE Queensland, Australia
letsgotravelaustralia.com
Climate
Sub-Tropical
When I choose the Tamron Marco lens it was based on price and quality of images, quality being very important for me. I still wanted an excellent macro lens. All the reviews I read and all the research I did, I found the Tamron gave just as good a quality as the Canon, so I couldn't justify the price difference.. One thing to be aware of it that non genuine/brand names camera brands like the Tamron, Sigma etc can hunt more than say the Canon lens.

I have not had any dust in my lens and did not know that was supposed to be an issue. Dust is more of an issue when changing lenses. As far as built quality, well you get what you paid for. If you want top notch build quality then buy the more expensive brand. Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with it and I know several professional people who use non brand named lenses and love them and get excellent results from them. The technology that goes into lenses is improving all the time.

Just because a lens is a Canon or Nikon does not automatically mean it's going to be a better lens. I have researched every lens I have bought and buy the best I can afford and the one that will give me the results I am after, whether that is a Canon or Tamron etc.

Love your work Steve :twothumbsup:
 

Ash

Valued Member
Premium Member
Mar 26, 2015
679
304
281
Preston, QLD
asmedical.webege.com
Climate
Temperate (all seasons)
Dust is more of an issue when changing lenses
That is mainly for dust on the outside elements and the camera sensor. But internal dust occurs from the vacuum suction action of a lens when being zoomed (especially) but in the case of the Tamron 90mm lens, when focusing. Unfortunately this is a problem for all non-weather sealed lenses. I have weather sealed lenses and they are rock solid and don't suck in dust, but my Tamron 28-75 and 70-200, despite best efforts to prevent dust from accumulating on the lens, still has a significant amount of internal dust that cannot be cleaned out unless the lens were taken apart (which I never see myself doing).
 

Letsgokate

Valued Member
Premium Member
Nov 12, 2014
910
397
281
SE Queensland, Australia
letsgotravelaustralia.com
Climate
Sub-Tropical
Hear what you are saying Ash and you are correct. Unfortunately to get the weather sealed lenses someone just about has to rob a bank :) hence why the likes of Tamron are so popular. We can only do our best to protect what we have and like you said despite our best efforts dust can still get in.
 

Ash

Valued Member
Premium Member
Mar 26, 2015
679
304
281
Preston, QLD
asmedical.webege.com
Climate
Temperate (all seasons)
Yep, but Pentax have the 18-55mm WR, 50-200mm WR and 55-300mm WR lenses all below about $400 (the 18-55 and 55-300 lenses are the best 'kit' lenses of all the brands available and are around $200 and $400 respectively). I have used all these and find them adequate for most situations (except sports or perhaps portraiture, but the 55-300 could suffice if used around 100-200mm shot at f/5.6)